Australian National Task Force on Cannabis

Last updated
Australian National Task Force on Cannabis
AbbreviationNTFC
Formation1992
TypeSpecialised task force
PurposeTo research and inform national cannabis policy
OriginsMinisterial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS)
AffiliationsNational Drug Strategy (NDS)
Cannabis plants in a commercial grow facility. Cannabis marijuana plants.jpg
Cannabis plants in a commercial grow facility.

The Australian National Task Force on Cannabis (NTFC) was a specialised unit formed in April 1992 under the aegis of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS) who are responsible for implementing national consistency in policy principles related to Australia's National Drug Strategy. [1]

Contents

The Task Force was initiated to analyse the usage of non-medical cannabis in Australia and review options for reform. [2] In 1994 the NTFC published its findings (a series of four technical reports by commissioned specialists and an executive summary) and recommended imposing civil penalties for minor cannabis crimes. It concluded that the harm of criminal penalties was greater than cannabis itself. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The Ministerial Council did not initially accept the Task Force's recommendation.

Although the Northern Territory acted on the Task Force's recommendation by imposing a civil scheme for minor cannabis offences (1996). The scheme was modelled on the South Australian CEN scheme introduced in 1989 (civil schemes operated already in SA and the ACT in 1992). [2] The Commonwealth Department of Health extended on the NTFC's principle research (1995-1998) by funding reports for the Australian Institute of Criminology and National Drug Strategy Committee. [2]

Research evidence on cannabis has been treated as evidence that is relevant to choosing approaches to cannabis. [8]

Task Force establishment

The NTFC's purpose of researching and informing national cannabis policy emerged in response to increased cannabis use in Australia, followed by growing concern about its health impacts.

Cannabis use rose from the early 1970s and grew exponentially throughout the 1980s (from 20% in 1973 to 60% in 1993). Rates of cannabis use among Australian adolescents were almost the highest in the developed world in the early 1990s. [9]

In 1992, the minister for Justice at the time (Michael Tate) called for more information on cannabis use and its effects at the Ministerial Council meeting. [2] [10]

Task Force research

World map of countries by annual prevalence of cannabis use according to the United Nations. World map of countries by annual prevalence of cannabis use.svg
World map of countries by annual prevalence of cannabis use according to the United Nations.

The NTFC report indicated that life-time cannabis use among young Australian adults had risen from less than 20% in 1973 to 60% in 1993. Rates of cannabis use in Australia were similar to those in New Zealand and probably higher than those in other OECD countries (Canada, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States). Use was most prevalent among younger adults. [2] [5]

Cannabis as a "gateway drug"

The NTFC report stated that the use of cannabis was not thought to directly initiate the use of other illicit drugs. The 1993 national household survey indicated that 96 per cent of cannabis users did not go on to try other illicit drugs. [2] [3]

The gateway theory has been discounted several times.

Cannabis health and psychological effects

The NTFC reported several health effects of cannabis use, including risks that were identified as “major”, “majorly probable” and “majorly possible”. [3] [2] There is less conclusive scientific evidence confirming the “majorly probable” and “majorly possible” risks of cannabis use, as it is difficult to measure the effects of cannabis use over the long term. [2]

Bodily effects of cannabis use Bodily effects of cannabis.svg
Bodily effects of cannabis use

The several “major” health effects of acute cannabis use (short-term effects of cannabis) found by the NTFC were:

According to the NTFC the major effects of acute use only affected a minority of regular users.

The several “major probable” health effects of chronic cannabis found by the NTFC were:

The long-term effects of cannabis remain uncertain. [11]

The other “major possible” risks of chronic use found by the NTFC were:

Brain of a cannabis user Brain of marijuana user.jpg
Brain of a cannabis user

No clear evidence of these links have been provided.

The NTFC report concluded that there were three ‘high risk’ groups: adolescents (as use was most prevalent and could result in increased dependence), women of childbearing age and persons with pre-existing conditions. [2]

Cannabis legislative options

The NTFC report identified five legislative options for reform. Four were seen as currently viable: [8] [4]

Drug harm ranking (harm to users and harm to others) Drugscience-harm-ranking.jpg
Drug harm ranking (harm to users and harm to others)

Most legislative options considered how criminal penalties resulted in “significant social harm” through the imposition of criminal records on users that increased involvement in the criminal justice system and the likelihood of exposure to other illicit drug markets. [9]

The NTFC stated that in their opinion, a total prohibition policy over-targets harm. [9] Current total prohibition policies (implemented in most Australian and US states) had been unsuccessful in reducing drug use and cause “significant social harm”. They are also associated with high financial costs of law enforcement. [2]

The NTFC concluded that a civil scheme would cause minimal “social harm” because it would separate the cannabis market from other (more serious) drug markets. The NTFC stated that the already operating schemes in Australia were subject to improvement but had no negative effects on the community. [2]

The NTFC stated there was a significant question as to whether the partial prohibition system or regulation scheme is effective at addressing harm. [9] A partial prohibition system would reduce “social harm” and the financial costs of law enforcement, but it had not been implemented or evaluated yet in any country. A regulation scheme would remove the incentive for a black market in cannabis but, leave non-targeted those forms of use that are high-risk (particularly adolescents or those prone to dependency). [2]

Public perception of cannabis legislative options

The NTFC measured public receptivity toward cannabis legislative options through conducting 1608 telephone surveys. [2] [6] The majority of respondents believed activities relating to large amounts of cannabis, or the supply and sale of cannabis should be illegal. A small majority of respondents (52-55% averaged across states) believed cannabis should be made legal. The most support was in the Northern Territory (68%) and the least support was in Queensland (44%). Of those respondents who thought that personal cannabis use should remain illegal, there were a significant percentage who did believe that it did not warrant criminal penalties (75% of all respondents). [2]

Public support for the discontinued application of criminal penalties for personal use has grown in Australia has grown in recent years according to research. [12]

Task Force recommendation

Civil scheme recommendation

Illustration of Cannabis satvia Illustration Cannabis sativa0 clean.jpg
Illustration of Cannabis satvia

The NTFC recommended the Ministerial Council develop a national cannabis policy imposing civil penalties for personal use. [2] [7] The NTFC justified a civil schemes application by arguing that the social and economic costs of enforcing criminal penalties on cannabis users far outweighed any benefits in deterring use or the harms arising from use. The Task Force cited that cannabis use was widespread, that its adverse health effects were modest and affected a minority of regular users, that criminal penalties did not affect the rate of cannabis use and that the majority of Australians supported the discontinued application of criminal penalties. [9]

The NTFC also recommended the increased allocation of time on information on the health consequences of cannabis and improved treatment options. The NTFC stated this specific aim of increasing awareness as being an attempt to delay the onset of cannabis use amongst adolescents. [2]

Response

The Ministerial Council on Drug strategy did not initially accept the Task Force's key recommendation, for reasons that are unknown because their deliberations are secret. [2] Although the NTFC's research and accompanying reviews were still published. [2]

The Northern Territory (NT) acted on the Task Force's recommendations with its introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Amendment Act 1996 which imposed minor civil penalties for small quantities of possession and use. [2] Civil schemes imposing fines for minor cannabis penalties were already operating in South Australia (SA) in 1989 and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in 1992.

The Commonwealth Department of Health also funded research recommended by the Task Force (for the Australian Institute of Criminology and the National Drug Strategy), acknowledging that the community was less informed about cannabis use than alcohol, tobacco, heroin and amphetamines. [2] [13]

Task Force research extension

Research in support of a civil scheme

Social harm

The argument that civil schemes could reduce social harm was supported by most accompanying reviews at an international, federal and state level. For example, similar arguments for cannabis decriminalisation were made in Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States in 1960-1970, and by the Australian Senate Committee in 1977. [14]

In 1998, the Commonwealth Department of Health funded a report for the National Drug Strategy Committee which concluded that the social harm of criminal penalties far outweighed those arising under a civil scheme. [10] Criminal records in Western Australia were more likely to lead to further contact with the police (most likely because police had electronic access to these records), which adversely affected employment opportunities, accommodation choices and personal relationships. Criminal records also appeared to have no unique advantage in deterring use, with 87% of 68 convicted offenders continuing their use at the same rate as before six months later. [10]

In 2001-2002, the Australian parliament published its critical overview of cannabis and argued that when adequately refined "a civil prohibitionist approach has a greater capacity to minimise harm than criminal prohibitionist approach." [8] A failure to expiate and net-widening effect could be combatted by increasing clear and comprehensive information about expiation, allowing payment through instalment or community service and enforcing more flexible police diversion according to the overview.

Cost Analysis

In Australia, in 1995 the Commonwealth Department of Health funded a report for the Australian Institute of Criminology. In analysing the costs of law enforcement, it stated that there was "accumulating evidence for the de-criminalisation of minor cannabis crimes". [15] The report estimated that 13% of all criminal justice and police resources were devoted to detecting and processing cannabis offences, which consisted of 73% of total drug enforcement resources (despite 87% of all cannabis offences reported being minor). This also cost cannabis law enforcement an estimated $329 million in 1991-92 and by comparison, the value of the black market was estimated to be $1.9 million. [15]

"Net-widening" effect

There was concern expressed over a "net-widening effect" arising under civil schemes (6231 cannabis offences were reported in South Australia in 1987/88 compared to 17,425 reported in 1996/96). However, according to the Committee's report, this was consistent with similar rates of increase across Australia. There was a 10% increase in the proportion of the population who had used cannabis in South Australia (under a civil scheme), but Victoria and Tasmania had similar rates of increase (under a criminal prohibition scheme). [10]

Research not in support of a civil scheme

Psychological harm

In Australia and worldwide, there is attention focusing increasingly on the nature of cannabis' relationship to mental illness and concern has been expressed over whether cannabis decriminalisation best protects high-risk groups such as adolescents identified as being prone to dependency. [2]

The Australian parliament in their 2001-2002 critical overview, raised the argument that no legislative approach to drug use does not, in itself, generate harms. [8] The overview cited emerging evidence of the role that cannabis may play in the development of dependence syndromes. [8]

Scale to assess the harm of drugs (mean physical harm and mean dependence) Rational scale to assess the harm of drugs (mean physical harm and mean dependence).svg
Scale to assess the harm of drugs (mean physical harm and mean dependence)

According to some reports, prolonged cannabis use (now termed CUD) causes decreased reactivity to dopamine, suggesting a possible link to an inhibited reward system and an increased addiction of severity. [16] Cannabis use disorder is now defined in the fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the main authoritative guide for mental health disorders in Australia. [11]

In 1996, the Queensland Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee argued that "the central goal of any legislative scheme" should be to discourage the use of cannabis and that the research available does reveal incidents of serious short and possible long-term effects associated with cannabis use. [2]

Recent research has indicated that adolescent cannabis use is associated with increased misuse as an adult, as well as long-term cognitive implications and psychiatric problems. [17] This may be because the endocannabinoid system is directly involved in adolescent brain development.

In Wayne.D. Hall's 2008 journal "The contribution of research to the development of a national cannabis policy in Australia", he stated that evidence from longitudinal studies strongly supports the casual connection between cannabis use and psychosis, depression and adverse psychological outcomes. He argues that proponents of decriminalisation tend to "discount this evidence". [9]

Public opinion

The Australian Institute of Criminology acknowledged in their 1995 report that a "strong constituency exists for maintaining the current approach to dealing with cannabis", which was the product of widely held concern about the health impacts of cannabis. [15] In Australia at this time, a moderate proportion of the population still believed cannabis should be illegal (64% of the population in Queensland thought cannabis should remain illegal). [2]

The impact of research evidence on cannabis policy

The purpose of research on cannabis has been twofold: to provide research in the area to determine its usage and effects, but also to treat research as evidence that is relevant to choosing approaches to cannabis.

Research evidence that cannabis criminalisation is associated with social harm led to the National Drug Strategy development of an initiative (1999) to encourage the diversion of first-time drug offenders to education and counselling programs. According to Wayne.D.Hall in his paper on "The contribution of research to the development of a national cannabis policy in Australia", the decriminalisation of cannabis was not an intended outcome of this initiative but partly resulted in this effect due to most first-time drug offences being cannabis-related. [9]

In 1995, the Victorian State Premier appointed a Drug Council which proposed to remove criminal penalties for cannabis use following the advisory of the Task Force but, conservative political parties opposed this. [9] In 1999, an attempt by the New South Wales Premier to decriminalise cannabis produced similar outcomes. [9] In 2004, a newly elected Western Australian premier decriminalised cannabis after a Drug Summit supported the proposal. Small fines for quantities of personal were imposed, and offenders unable to pay were offered the alternative of counselling or treatment. [9]

A National Cannabis Strategy of harm reduction was officially formed in 2006 by the National Drug Strategy committee and endorsed by the Ministerial Council (MCDS). The evidence cited for this policy initiative was epidemiological data on the rising rates of use among young people, as well as evidence from longitudinal studies in Australia and New Zealand that regular use of cannabis was associated with a number of negative long-term effects (e.g. dependency, cognitive implications and psychiatric problems). [9] The strategy supported cannabis prohibition but, recommended imposing civil penalties for use and possession and interventions for cannabis users. [9] It also advocated for public education campaigns (mainly to discourage high-risk users), efforts to reduce cannabis availability and improved treatment options.

In Australia, criminal penalties for cannabis offences remain in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland but jurisdictions have adopted 'diversionary' cautioning procedures. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug policy of the Netherlands</span>

While recreational use, possession and trade of non-medicinal drugs described by the Opium Law are all technically illegal under Dutch law, official policy since the late 20th century has been to openly tolerate all recreational use while tolerating the other two under certain circumstances. This pragmatic approach was motivated by the idea that a drug-free Dutch society is unrealistic and unattainable, and efforts would be better spent trying to minimize harm caused by recreational drug use. As a result of this gedoogbeleid, the Netherlands is typically seen as much more tolerant of drugs than most other countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prohibition of drugs</span> History, effects and enforcement of the prohibition of drugs

The prohibition of drugs through sumptuary legislation or religious law is a common means of attempting to prevent the recreational use of certain intoxicating substances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substance abuse</span> Harmful use of drugs

Substance abuse, also known as drug abuse, is the use of a drug in amounts or by methods that are harmful to the individual or others. It is a form of substance-related disorder. Differing definitions of drug abuse are used in public health, medical, and criminal justice contexts. In some cases, criminal or anti-social behavior occurs when the person is under the influence of a drug, and long-term personality changes in individuals may also occur. In addition to possible physical, social, and psychological harm, the use of some drugs may also lead to criminal penalties, although these vary widely depending on the local jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harm reduction</span> Public health policies designed to lessen the negative consequences associated with human behavior

Harm reduction, or harm minimization, refers to a range of public health policies designed to lessen the negative social and/or physical consequences associated with various human behaviors, both legal and illegal. Harm reduction is used to decrease negative consequences of recreational drug use and sexual activity without requiring abstinence, recognizing that those unable or unwilling to stop can still make positive change to protect themselves and others.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) is an international nonprofit organization advocacy and education organization with focus on drug policy, war on drugs, marijuana legalization, psychedelics, juvenile justice and youth rights, drug decriminalization, criminal justice reform. SSDP promotes global youth civic engagement as a tool in reforming drug policy.

This article is intended to give an overview of several arguments for and against drug prohibition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs</span> 1961 international treaty regulating narcotic drugs

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is an international treaty that controls activities of specific narcotic drugs and lays down a system of regulations for their medical and scientific uses; it also establishes the International Narcotics Control Board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis (drug)</span> Psychoactive drug from the cannabis plant

Cannabis, also known as marijuana among other names, is a psychoactive drug from the cannabis plant. Native to Central or South Asia, the cannabis plant has been used as a drug for both recreational and entheogenic purposes and in various traditional medicines for centuries. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the main psychoactive component of cannabis, which is one of the 483 known compounds in the plant, including at least 65 other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD). Cannabis can be used by smoking, vaporizing, within food, or as an extract.

Drug education is the planned provision of information, guidelines, resources, and skills relevant to living in a world where psychoactive substances are widely available and commonly used for a variety of both medical and non-medical purposes, some of which may lead to harms such as overdose, injury, infectious disease, or addiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States</span> Legalization of marijuana in the United States

In the United States, the non-medical use of cannabis is legalized in 21 states and decriminalized in 10 states, as of January 2023. Decriminalization refers to a policy of reduced penalties for cannabis offenses, typically involving a civil penalty for possessing small amounts, instead of criminal prosecution or the threat of arrest. In jurisdictions without penalty the policy is referred to as legalization, although the term decriminalization is sometimes used for this purpose as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug liberalization</span> Process of reducing drug prohibition laws

Drug liberalization is a drug policy process of decriminalizing or legalizing the use or sale of prohibited drugs. Variations of drug liberalization include: drug legalization, drug re-legalization and drug decriminalization. Proponents of drug liberalization may favor a regulatory regime for the production, marketing, and distribution of some or all currently illegal drugs in a manner analogous to that for alcohol, caffeine and tobacco.

Illicit drug use in Australia is the recreational use of prohibited drugs in Australia. Illicit drugs include illegal drugs, pharmaceutical drugs when used for non-medical purposes, and other substances used inappropriately. According to government and community organisations, the use and abuse, and the illegality, of illicit drugs is a social, health and legal issue that creates an annual illegal market estimated to be worth A$6.7 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug policy of Canada</span> Overview of the drug policy of Canada

Canada's drug regulations are measures of the Food and Drug Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In relation to controlled and restricted drug products, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act establishes eight schedules of drugs and new penalties for the possession, trafficking, exportation and production of controlled substances as defined by the Governor-in-Council. Drug policy of Canada has traditionally favoured punishment for the smallest of offences, but this convention was partially broken in 1996 with the passing of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Australia</span> Recreational and medicinal drug use

Cannabis is a plant used in Australia for recreational, medicinal and industrial purposes. In 2019, 36% of Australians over the age of fourteen years had used cannabis in their lifetime and 11.6% had used cannabis in the last 12 months.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug policy of Portugal</span> Overview of the drug policy of Portugal

The drug policy of Portugal, informally called the "drug strategy", was put in place in 2000, and came into effect in July 2001. Its purpose was to reduce the number of new HIV/AIDS cases in the country, as it was estimated around half of new cases came from injection drug use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Long-term effects of cannabis</span> Overview of long-term effects of the consumption of cannabis

The long-term effects of cannabis have been the subject of ongoing debate. Because cannabis is illegal in most countries, clinical research presents a challenge and there is limited evidence from which to draw conclusions. In 2017, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report summarizing much of the published literature on health effects of cannabis, into categories regarded as conclusive, substantial, moderate, limited and of no or insufficient evidence to support an association with a particular outcome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis use disorder</span> Continued use of cannabis despite clinically significant impairment

Cannabis use disorder (CUD), also known as cannabis addiction or marijuana addiction, is defined in the fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and ICD-10 as the continued use of cannabis despite clinically significant impairment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug Law Reform Australia</span> Political party in Australia

Drug Law Reform Australia is a deregistered political party in Australia. The aims of the party are to create a new regulatory system for illegal drugs in Australia, and influence the political debate around drug use towards decriminalisation and harm minimisation. The party is the outshoot of community groups lobbying elected politicians about the social effects of criminal drug prohibition, such as the community group Family and Friends of Drug Law Reform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in Canada</span> Aspect of history

The Cannabis Act (C-45) of June, 2018 paved the way for the legalization of cannabis in Canada on 17 October 2018. Police and prosecution services in all Canadian jurisdictions are currently capable of pursuing criminal charges for cannabis marketing without a licence issued by Health Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the federal Parliament has the power to criminalize the possession of cannabis and that doing so does not infringe upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Ontario have, however, held that the absence of a statutory provision for medical marijuana is unconstitutional, and to that extent the federal law is of no force and/or effect if a prescription is obtained. The recreational use of cannabis has been legalized by the federal government, and took effect on 17 October 2018.

The National Drug Strategy (NDS) is the national drug regulation organization which maintains drug policy of the Australian Government. It began with its first framework in 1998 and has regularly formulated the Australian approach to drug education, treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention of substance abuse. It is directed by the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum (MDAF) who use the NDS to implement and monitor the effectiveness of Australian drug policy at all levels of government. The MDAF consists of various elected Commonwealth and State Ministers, as well as civil servants. The aim of the NDS is to minimise the harms associated with licit and illicit drugs by reducing demand, supply, and harm in a holistic approach to the social, individual, and economic problems created by drugs. Its main function is establishing a set of policies, implemented at state and local level, that promote research-based solutions to the complex issues presented by drug use in society. The NDS has been responsible for introduction of several harm minimisation programs specifically placed in areas with a demographic deemed high-risk. Through the various iterations of the NDS it has faced increasing scrutiny over its perceived divergence from its original purpose, as well as perpetuating policies which allocate resources inefficiently.

References

  1. The University of New South Wales law journal. 1997. p. 609.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Queensland, ed. (1996). Report on a review of the Criminal Justice Commission's Report on cannabis and the law in Queensland. Report / Legislative Assembly, Criminal Justice Committee. Brisbane: The Committee.
  3. 1 2 3 Hall. W, D. Solowij. N, & Lemon. J,. (1994). The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
  4. 1 2 McDonald, D. Moore. R, Norberry. J, Wardlaw. G, & Ballenden. N,. (1994). Legislative Options for Cannabis in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
  5. 1 2 Donnelly. N, Hall. W., (1994). Patterns of Cannabis Use in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
  6. 1 2 Bowman. J, & Sanson-Fisher. R., (1994). Public Perceptions of Cannabis Legalisation. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
  7. 1 2 Ali. R, & Christie. P., (1994). Report of the National Task Force on Cannabis. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House, Canberra. "A Critical Overview of Australian Approaches to Cannabis". www.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 2020-11-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hall, Wayne D. (May 2008). "The contribution of research to the development of a national cannabis policy in Australia". Addiction. 103 (5): 712–720. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02169.x. PMID   18412748.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Ali, Robert; Australia, eds. (1999). The social impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia: summary report presented to the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 4 May 1998. Monograph series. Canberra: Publications Production Unit, Dept. of Health and Aged Care. ISBN   978-0-642-39424-8.
  11. 1 2 Gordon, Adam J.; Conley, James W.; Gordon, Joanne M. (2013-11-14). "Medical Consequences of Marijuana Use: A Review of Current Literature". Current Psychiatry Reports. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID   24234874. S2CID   29063282.
  12. "Alcohol, tobacco & other drugs in Australia, Cannabis". Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved 2020-11-05.
  13. Martin Booth (June 2005). Cannabis: A History. Picador. pp. 391–. ISBN   978-0-312-42494-7.
  14. Hall, Wayne D. (May 2008). "The contribution of research to the development of a national cannabis policy in Australia". Addiction. 103 (5): 712–720. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02169.x. ISSN   0965-2140. PMID   18412748.
  15. 1 2 3 Atkinson & McDonald (1995). Cannabis, the law and social impacts in Australia. Vol. 48. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN   0-642-23324-1.
  16. Madras, Bertha K. (2014-08-19). "Dopamine challenge reveals neuroadaptive changes in marijuana abusers". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111 (33): 11915–11916. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11111915M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1412314111 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   4143049 . PMID   25114244.
  17. Levine, Amir; Clemenza, Kelly; Rynn, Moira; Lieberman, Jeffrey (2017-03-01). "Evidence for the Risks and Consequences of Adolescent Cannabis Exposure". Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 56 (3): 214–225. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2016.12.014. ISSN   0890-8567. PMID   28219487.